Reread your posting and see how ignorant you sound...call the president a liar..going to war over oil...boy thats a sad worn out story you leftys like to use.
Every other countries intelligence said they had the missiles, even saddams own guys, believed it. When you say you have them and act like a jackass shooting @ our planes when you signed your treaty from the gulf war ,you are asking to get your butt spanked....All the nut jobs we are fighting now, are saddams goons and syrias nutballs. They need to be destroyed so the decent people of iraq can actually have something of a life without fear.
I know a few iraqis who escaped saddams grip. They left their friends and families to escape. I heard how life was under him. I heard how so many of their friends were murdered. They are very thankful for the removal of saddam and though life is far from perfect there, it is better and they actually were able to go back and see their family for the 1st time in 10 yrs.
The left in this country sure loves to bitch about human rights and blahblahblah...but when a dictator suppresses his people and we got terrorists running around blowing up innocent people, hell, its there problem right???...Don't wanna hear what a great prez Bill C. was, How did he do in Rwanda?...After all being the 1st black president and all, i was shocked he didnt try to stop the machete massacre down there...i did a Larry King..running of thoughts i thought you would like that since thats your news outlet.
any more poems Robert Frost Jr?
Proudamerican, it's kind of ironic you bring up Saddam's human-rights record. In the 1980's, I was a young liberal writing letters for Amnestry International about Saddam's human rights records... and meanwhile Reagan and Bush's father were wholeheartedly supporting Saddam. In the 1980's, when the Democrats wanted to put sanctions on Saddam for his human-rights record, (after the videos of the Kurds getting gassed came out) it was Bush's dad who made a speech to Congress about how Saddam was our ally and we needed him. It was only after he attacked Kuwait, a country that we bought a lot of oil from, that Saddam's human rights record suddenly became an issuel. If he had just stuck to attacking Kurds and Iranians, he would probably still be on our payroll.
So, as you see, the American right has no moral credibility on Saddam Hussein whatsover. It's almost laughably hypocritcal for right-wingers to talk about Saddam's human rights record. If you were for Saddam when he was committing his worst atrocities (in the 80's), then you can't be against those atrocities now.
And, yes, we DO need to do something about terrorists running around and blowing people up... that's why I (and most liberals) supported the invasion of Afghanistan. But, "when a dictator supresses his people," that's another story. There are MANY dictators in this world--some of them arguably worse than Saddam. If that is the criteria we use for invading a country, we have LOTS of invading to do. You want to invade Burma? China? Saudi Arabia? Somalia? North Korea?
The fact is, America simply can't afford to be the world's policeman. We need to save our tax money to fight organizations that actually attacked us, like Al Quaida. It makes no sense at all to attack an enemy of Al Quaida like Saddam when we haven't even caught Bin Laden yet.
As for "the people in Iraq can have something of a life without fear," that's also ironic, because Iraq has actually become a much more dangerous place since the invasion. In the old days, if you stayed the hell away from politics, then you were OK. Nowadays, you might get murdered for your politics (same as when Saddam was in power), but you might also get murdered for your religion or, if you're a woman, you might get attacked for wearing the wrong clothes. It's gotten so bad that Christians are fleeing the country, moving to Syria and Jordan, when in the old days, Iraq was considered to be a good candidate for the most religiously tolerant country in the Middle East. In many ways, Iraq is arguably getting worse, not better.
Personally, I'm not necessarily for leaving Iraq. I think that we have to make the situation acceptable before we leave. My bigest problem with Bush concerning Iraq is that he seems completely unable to do so. I mean, even many Republicans agree that Rumsfeld is totally incompetant, but Bush won't fire him, no matter how many times he messes up. The Democrats have a very good record of nation building (think postwar Japan, Germany, or more recent examples like Bosnia). I don't think we'll see any progress on Iraq until we get a new government.
Edited By mabewa on 1158736976
I am a liberal ill say it right now. I choose to solve problems based on everyones perspectives instead of hiding in my hole like the fanatic conservatives. Notice im not bashing all conservatives. Just people like ProudAmerican. Ill say it right now. I apologised to pakistanifloyd for calling him an idiot, but proudamerican, you are close to being the most idiotic and closed minded person ive ever heard of. You need to open your eyes before deciding who needs to be "blown up". Thats not an option.
we cant get out of iraq until the job is done, thats true, but we shouldntve gone in in the first place. Did you know it was first known as Operation Iraqi Liberation, aka OIL, but quickly changed it, for obvious resons, to Operation Iraqi Freedom
I dont hide from war, but i support alternative solutions.
Liberals are the ones that get things done. Conservatives choose to hide and wait out the storm, while liberals choose to find ways to stop the storm in the future. We are causing more harm in the middle east than we are helping.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." --Winston Churchill